urban planning
urban planning
Children Learn Under the Trees
Pupils from Nelson Ramodike High School still learn under trees despite the government’s promise to six years ago to eradicate tree, mud and shack classrooms in the Limpopo Province.
The school has a total enrolment of 765 pupils, but during rainy days, almost half of them do not report for school.
Situated in thick bushes at the foot of a mountain outside Lenyenye in Tzaneen, the school has only 15 classrooms, making teaching and learning impossible due to extreme overcrowding.
To read the article titled, “We still learn under the trees,” click hereSource:SowetanBetween a Shack and an RDP House: Alternative Forms of Tenure Security
Homeless people in South Africa are caught between a ‘shack’ and an ‘RDP’ house. If they take matters into their own hands by invading and occupying land illegally, they face the prospect of eviction with nowhere else to stay. If they wait for government to build them an RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) or BNG (Breaking New Ground) ‘starter’ house, they may have to wait in their present housing environment in rural areas, or in their parent’s house, or in overcrowded backyard rentals, until government gets around to building a house for them and providing them with tenure security. If past housing delivery rates are projected into the future, some people will still be waiting for their RDP houses in 2032.
There is simply not enough money and resources available to quickly provide everyone who needs a house with a full RDP house. In the absence of any alternative, households have not much choice but to occupy illegal informal settlements. There is an urgent need for the South African government to expand the number of alternative ways for the poor to access tenure security and basic services.
Channels of supply
Additional channels for the supply of land and housing need to be developed and provided that do not just rely on government providing full individual ownership as part of an RDP housing project or people taking matters into their own hands. Somewhere between state allocation via subsidy provision and self allocation through illegal occupation, there is a range of potential options for the poor to access urban land in ways that achieve official recognition and the wide variety of benefits that arise from this. As Urban LandMark stated in the Land Rights to Property Markets conference report, October 2008, the challenge is to “increase the points of entry into the urban land market” for the urban poor and “multiply the channels of supply” for accessing alternative tenure security options.
The law and eviction
According to the United Nations Habitat programme, security of tenure is defined as “the right of individuals and groups to effective protection by the state from unlawful evictions.” Under international law, forced eviction is defined as “the permanent or temporary removal against the will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate form of legal or other protection.”
One way to start to unpack these additional channels of supply is to conceptualise tenure security as a continuum between land tenure insecurity - for example, when people face the threat of eviction as they have no permission to be on the land - to ‘full’ security where households have title deeds provided through the formal township establishment processes and the deeds registry.
Responses to land occupation
The perception of tenure security on the part of the land occupant depends on how the authorities and/or land owners respond to people occupying the land. The following list provides an initial attempt to start to place tenure options along this continuum from ‘no’ to ‘full’ tenure security. Options for how authorities and/or land owners could respond to people settling on land include:
- Proceed with eviction procedures to remove households from the land. In such situations, the occupiers have no to very little tenure security.
- Allow people who have occupied the land for more than six months to stay on the land until alternative arrangements are made to accommodate these households.
- Turn a ‘blind eye’ and simply ignore the occupation of the land. Such tenure security is weak in that the authorities and/or land owners can at any time decide to take action to evict the occupiers of the land.
- Make a statement simply acknowledging the occupation of the land. The authorities publicly confirm that the people can stay on the land, but the state and land owner does nothing more in support of tenure security. This relies on the good will of the authorities and land owners who can still change their minds and proceed with eviction processes in future.
- Provide basic services to the occupiers of the land, but do not provide any written confirmation that people can stay on the land. The community should feel more secure in the knowledge that it is unlikely that the authorities and/or land owners will evict them after they have invested in basic services in the area.
- Provide the occupants of the land with some form of paper that indicates that they have permission to occupy the land under certain conditions. For example, households must not allow more people to occupy the land, or households must pay monthly fees towards the provision of services to the area, etc.
- Formally mark out the outer boundary of the piece of land where a number of households are or will be staying and enter into a lease agreement with a voluntary association or formal group representing the occupiers of the land indicating that the members of the group can stay on the land. This agreement does not necessary have to indicate where in the ‘super block’ individual households will be staying.
- Informally mark out portions of land within a formally marked out outer boundary and enter into lease agreements with the occupiers of the land that they can stay on that informally marked out plot on condition that they pay rent to the authority and/or land owner.
- Formally sub-divide the land and enter into lease agreements with individual households confirming that they can continue to stay on the land as long as they abide by the lease agreement rules.
- Formally register and transfer individual title to heads of households. This individual ownership is often referred to as full tenure security.
Setbacks in full tenure security
There are a number of reasons why full tenure security may not be appropriate. It costs a lot of money to employ professional town planners, land surveyors and lawyers (conveyancers) to establish individual plots and transfer title deeds to households. It takes a long time for formal township establishment processes to be undertaken and for formal title deeds to be transferred to individuals. Households may not need full tenure security as they do not want to use their house as collateral for a loan.
The recent global credit crunch, brought on by lending practices of banks in the United States of America providing bonds to households that could not pay back their mortgages, highlights that it is not always prudent to provide bonds to households that have little chance of paying back their loans. In any event, there are alternative micro finance arrangements that households can use to get loans without mortgaging property. Households also may not be able to pay the rates and service charges associated with owning property; and municipalities may not be totally reliant on these taxes and fees to provide municipal services. Many people may be happy with some form of tenure security, rather than none, and may not want the extra responsibilities and costs that go with ‘full’ title. (See the box below for a more detailed explanation as to why full individual ownership may not be appropriate in all instances.)
The LANDfirst approach
A tenure system that works for the poor would be one that is affordable to establish and maintain, so that the poor can gain access to tenure security now and in the future. It should compensate people for the investment they make on the property, thereby encouraging on-going improvement and maintenance. The LANDfirst approach advocated by Afesis-corplan, Urban LandMark and a number of other civil society organisations, provides an example of how such an alternative tenure system could work.
The outer boundary of an existing informal settlement earmarked for future upgrading, or a new piece of land identified for phased and incremental settlement, is identified. The land owners or authorities and the community determine how many households will be allowed to occupy this piece of land. As a minimum, a record is kept of who can occupy this land without necessarily specifying where each household must stay within this outer boundary. If a slightly more tenure secure arrangement is sought, it may be appropriate for individual plots to be marked out on the ground and on a map, but not necessary to formally register these internal plot layouts with the Surveyor General. This layout needs to take into account how the area will be upgraded in the future, including new roads and sewer pipes. The municipality and/or a local community residents association can then keep a record of which households are occupying which plots and manage any changes in occupation of the plots. The right to settle on a plot can be accompanied by permission to build certain types of structures, undertake certain types of activities and follow agreed processes when transferring the right of occupation. Clear procedures and rules need to be in place that outline how households will be compensated for any improvements they may make on the plots they have occupied when they decide to move.
There are many ways that such basic and interim tenure arrangements between a shack and an RDP house can be provided. The South African government needs to support pilot and demonstration projects that explore these different tenure arrangements so that homeless households can have more opportunities and choices in how they can access land for settlement purposes.
Reviewing motivations for private ownership
A number of motivations have been given as to why it is important to encourage individually owned private property over other forms of tenure security. This section explores to what extent these motivations are valid.
Full ownership provides tenure security: It is argued that if households have individual title deeds, they will not be evicted from the property. They will have proof that they are the official owners of the land. However, other forms of titling, such as recognition of occupation certificates, also provide similar levels of tenure security. If the process of transferring ownership is complicated and expensive, formal transfers may not occur. Over time the name of the person who formally owns the title deeds in the deeds registry may be different from the name of the person who is actually staying on the property. Full ownership does not lead to tenure security for households who have lost their property due to being unable to pay back loans or bonds where they have used their property as collateral.
Full ownership encourages investment in housing: If a person owns her or his own property, they have more of an incentive to invest in maintaining and improving the property. When they sell the property they will be able to get a market-related price for the property, which takes into account any improvements made. Rental and other forms of tenure do not encourage people to use their own money to make improvements, because when they leave they cannot get compensated for what they have invested. However, in instances where government has put in some form of services, without transferring official individual title to households, experience shows that these households still invest in their properties. It may not just be individual ownership that encourages investment in housing, but other factors as well, like communities having a sense of security through municipal investment in basic services in the area. There are other forms of tenure security besides individual ownership that can take into account the previous investments made by households when tenure is transferred.
Full ownership allows owners to make money: Homeowners that have full title are able to make a profit from their property when they sell it, because land is in scarce supply and people are willing to pay a good price for it. This is premised on the fairly rational assumption that property prices will continue to rise. Households can lose if no one is willing to buy at a seller’s breakeven price. Usually, if a land owner’s property value is increasing, it means that most other property values are also increasing. The value of well-located properties tends to rise at a higher rate than those in less prime areas. Households are tempted to sell their property at high prices to the highest bidders – usually high-income households. This makes it difficult for low income households to buy property in these locations as the prices are too high. Prime locations become inaccessible to the poor.
Full ownership allows for households to access formal credit: If a person owns a house they can use the title deeds as security for a loan (or bond) that can be used to improve the house, buy another house, or start a business. However, most low income households who have individual title to their houses are not using their houses as collateral for loan. Housing micro finance, that does not involve using housing property as collateral, may be more appropriate for many poorer households. In such instances, if the micro finance loan is not repaid, the lending institution does not repossess the land or property. Lenders are only issued loans once they have demonstrated a commitment to save, and they are ineligible for further loans until they repay previous loans. Other savings group members can also stand security on behalf of fellow group members. If one group member fails to repay their loan, then none of the other group members are eligible for further loans until this loan is repaid.
Full ownership increases municipal government revenues: If a person owns a house, the municipality can collect rates and taxes on the property. This can be used to improve the local neighbourhood, which will increase the value of the property and a virtuous spiral develops of more revenue, more public investment, increasing property values, more taxes, and more government revenue. Government can also collect other forms of tax, like capital gains taxes when the property is transferred to inheritors on the death of the owner. These taxes and services, however, place high demands on new property-owning households to start paying additional rates and services. Municipalities also have the unenviable task of having to repossess property if households are unable to keep up with rates and service payments. Municipalities receive large amounts of finance from equitable share transfers based on the number of poor households in their jurisdictions. They do not rely solely on income from local taxes and service charges. There is also not a clear link between the government department that collects taxes and the department that spends the income on upgrading the neighbourhood. It is often very difficult for households to see how their taxes are being used to improve the local neighbourhood.
Ronald Eglin is a senior projects coordinator at Afesis-corplan, overseeing the Co-operative Housing, LED and Planned Land Access projects. This article first appeared in the Transformer, a bi-monthly journal published by Afesis-corplanAuthor(s):Ronald EglinRevitalising Public Participation
With democracy being relatively new in South Africa, local government has had to undergo much institutional reform between 1994 and 2000. A key part of this overhaul has been the requirement for democratic processes in municipal decision-making methods between elections.
Recently, government has been encouraging municipalities to have public participation units. Local government in South Africa is now required to implement forms of public participation, particularly around development planning and budgeting.
The Local Government Municipal Systems Act of 2000 requires that municipalities “develop a culture of municipal governance that complements formal representative government with a system of participatory governance,” (Carrim, 2001: 14).
Indeed, there is much to suggest that the recent emphasis on public participation in local government has a lot to do with the failure of local politicians to govern as prescribed under our laws. Hence, while institutions of participatory governance were established in 2000, the effort to institutionalise them came some five years later following a spate of country-wide protests.
In the year preceding the 2006 local government elections, the Minister of Safety and Security reported some 5 085 protests against inept and corrupt local government nationwide (Robert, 2007). Recognition by government that this dissatisfaction was justified was implied by ‘Project Consolidate’, an initiative of the then national Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), now Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CGTA), to redress the fact that “modes of interaction, engagement and support to local government are not having the desired impact on local government and communities,” (Joshua, 2007: 29).
Notably, 48 percent of South Africa’s 284 municipalities made this list. In short, if the development of public participation policy in South Africa was motivated by lofty ideals, its recent implementation has been mostly a response to local governance failure.
Basically, public participation is about allowing people to execute their most basic human right—the right to participate in decisions regarding their future, as stated in the South African Bill of Rights. So, what then is participatory governance?
The White Paper on Local Government of 1998 suggests that “municipalities should develop mechanisms to ensure citizen participation in policy initiation and formulation, and the monitoring and evaluation of decision-making and implementation”.
However, it is really only with the Municipal Structures Act of 1998 and especially the Municipal Systems Act of 2000 that participatory local governance was given institutional life. Where the Structures Act sets out the various structures of local government, including ward committees, the Systems Act outlines how they are to be used. More specifically, Section 16 obliges municipalities to “develop a culture of municipal governance that complements formal representative government with a system of participatory governance,” (Municipal Systems Act of 2000: 6).
The most important innovation of public participation at local government level lies in the ward committee system. The Municipal Systems Act provides for ward committees to be established in each ward of a Category A or Category B municipality, if the municipality so chooses. Of late though, government has been suggesting that the ward committee system be made compulsory for all municipalities.
Chaired by the ward councillor, ward committees are intended to consist of up to 10 people representing “a diversity of interests in the ward, with women equitably represented,” (Municipal Systems Act of 2000: 24). Ward committees may make recommendations on any matter affecting their wards. Notably, their primary function is to “create formal, unbiased communication channels between the community and the council,” (Friedman, 2005: 36). They are also required to mobilise the community to participate in service payment campaigns, development planning and budgetary processes, decisions about service provision, by-laws and the like.
Additionally, participatory governance requires involvement of the public in core municipal processes like development planning, performance management, the budget and strategic decisions relating to services. In short, public participation is statutorily injected into the most important municipal processes. Government policy on how to engage with the public on these issues is quite limited, and usually manifests in the insistence of using ward committees. In practice, it seems this happens through the use of public meetings called by the mayor, also known as a mayoral izimbizo (public meeting).
However, both ward committees and mayoral izimbizos are poor representations of the empowered and participatory institutions of this sort. Neither ward committees nor mayoral izimbizos have any decision-making powers, and certainly none over resources. These powers are expressly reserved in law for politicians and may not be delegated to ward committees.
Perhaps more importantly, the deliberative role of both ward committees and izimbizos are practically confined. Although ward committees are meant to identify key issues affecting their ward and deliberate upon them, the failure to integrate ward committees explicitly into the decision-making or delivery processes of the local municipality means that there is little impact that they beyond merely deliberating.
For example, in the Amahlathi municipality where the writer is currently facilitating capacity building workshops of ward committee members, some ward committee members have indicated that they have never attended any of the council meetings. Some of these ward committees have been operational since 2006.
This is tantamount to breaking the law, especially when one considers the fact that the Municipal Structures Act of 1998 highlights that at least 75 percent of council meetings ought to be open to the public. Currently, they have no role in development planning or the budget process at municipal or local level, nor do they have any direct say on how officials deliver on these commitments.
Currently, all ward committees do is to encourage the voice of ward councillors at the monthly council meetings. By design, a ward committee must transfer its deliberations through the ward councillor to the council. Should the ward councillor be incompetent, disinterested, or marginalised for some other reason, the ward committee’s deliberations will count for nothing.
Indeed, a strong case can be made that ward councillors are the weakest of all councillors, due to the fact that the electoral system is only half constituency-based. The other half is proportional representation as guided by party lists. Notably, the senior party politicians in local government are almost always elected by party list and not from wards, so as to ensure their place in government. A consequence of this is that key political players, especially those who sit on the municipal executive, do not have ward committees. In effect then, ward committees are a participation mandate imposed on disempowered politicians.
Arguably, since 1994 an attempt has been made to institutionalise public participation through various ‘invited spaces’. The idea is to complement the system of multi-party representative government with a form of community participation that draws on indigenous traditions of democratic practice. Unfortunately, these invited spaces are not really working. Rather than being forums for genuine community engagement with local leaders, they tend to be at best exercises in public relations, and at worst, sites for capture by political elites.
In conclusion, as long as public participation in local governance remains limited to ward committees and izimbizos in their current form, it will be largely meaningless. With little incentive for citizens to participate in them, these structures will remain another space for dominant political entities to exert their will.
Thabile Sokupa is Project Coordinator at Afesis-corplan. This article was first published in the August-September 2009 edition of The Transformer (link to http://www.afesis.org.za/the-Transformer/augustseptember-2009 ) and is republished here with permission from Afesis-corplan.
NOTES
Carrim Y (2001) ‘Bridging the Gap Between the Ideas and Practice: Challenges of the New Local Government System’ in Umrabulo, 10.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pubs/umrabulo/umrabulo10c.html
Joshua, C. Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy in David Estlund (ed).2007. Democracy. Maldon and Oxford: Blackwell.
Robert, M. 2007. Democracy Without the People: Economics, Governance, and Representation in South Africa. Journal of Democracy, Vol 13 No 1, pp 5-21.
Section 16(1) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. Department of Provincial and Local Government. Pretoria, South Africa.
Friedman, S. 2005. On Who’s Terms: Participatory Governance and Citizen Action in Post-Apartheid South Africa? Paper presented at International Institute of Labour Studies Workshop ‘Participatory Governance: A New Regulatory Framework? 9-10 December, Geneva.Author(s):Thabile SokupaAngloplat ordered to return land
Link description:<br />Chintsa River Golf Estate Art Exhibition
A free Art Exhibition featuring internationally exhibited artists, plus a plethora of Walter Sisulu student and local work will be held at Chintsa River Golf Estate Swiss Villa from 15 December 2008 to 5 January 2009.
Chintsa River Golf Estate is 25 km from East London.
See Chintsa River Golf Estate for details.
Entry is free. Opens 11am. Closes 5pm.
All artwork is for sale and a portion of each art sale is donated to African Angels.
Contact Sal Price on 071 602 1875 or email Lou at lou@sponsoranangel.org for further information.
Event type:LaunchEvent venue:<a href="http://www.chintsariver.co.za" target="_blank">Chintsa River Golf Estate</a>, Chintsa, East London. <br />Event start date:15/12/2008Event end date:05/01/2009North West Housing Project for the Poor
The North West Department of Developmental Local Government and Housing has launched a housing project worth R200 million for the working poor in Mafikeng.
The North West government will provide a R48 000 subsidy, called the Finance Linked Subsidy Programme, for those who want to purchase a house from the development. Only those making between R3 500 and R7 000 will qualify for the subsidy.
"The developer takes the full risk of the development from application for township establishment, design and monitoring of construction process", says department spokesperson, Lesiba Kgwele.
To read the article titled, “R200m project for the poor,” click here.Source:<br /> News24ATLAS Africa Conference 2009
ATLAS Africa, the University of Botswana and the International Geographical Union's Commission of Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, are hosting the ATLAS Africa Conference 2009 from 1-3 July 2009 in Botswana.
The conference is aimed at discussing the relationship between tourism and development in African context. It will also focus especially on the roles and potential of tourism for development, sustainability in tourism and relations between tourism, environment and communities. A special consideration will be given to the roles and challenges of tourism in the context of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
In addition, the conference will also focus on the following:
- Discuss the nature and roles of tourism development in the African contexts.
- Explore the benefits and costs of tourism development for communities and nature conservation.
- Examine the role of tourism in sustainable development and the impacts of tourism in natural and cultural landscapes.
- Explore various ways of utilising tourism for the achievement of MDGs in different scales.
- Develop new approaches to utilise tourism for development and especially for sustainable development
- Analyse contemporary issues, practices and future changes and challenges (such as global climate change or innovation policy needs ) in tourism development and sustainability
- Provide an open forum for the exchange of views among academics, policy makers and community and nature conservation area planners and professionals.
Theme: Tourism for Development - Environmental Sustainability, Poverty Reduction and Empowering Communities
Registration: admin@atlas-euro.org
For more information and to participate, click here.
Event type:ConferenceEvent venue:University of Botswana Main Campus, GaboroneEvent start date:01/07/2009Event end date:03/07/2009Its the week-ennnnnd bay-beeeeee!
No its not – its only Friday morning but the radio shouts this to me a number of times before work even starts for me this Friday morning (and most others). It gets me thinking about the apparent madness that greets the weekend for some, and yes, I understand that it’s about play and a break from the routine, a welcome break too.
But what about those for whom a break from routine means so much else? Not play and party, but real hunger. I have often come across this ‘other reality of the weekend (one of many other realities of weekend). The view of a weekend as a foodless stretch of two days. The reality lived by so many young people who depend on a daily meal through some or other NGO or CBO feeding programme - these programmes often not going ‘beyond the working week’.
I often ask why, cynically acting astounded that this or that community has a group of young people who simply don’t appear to need food over weekends – or better still, school holidays. The responses I get sometimes – “who will cook?” or, “well, we can’t work every day of the week/year can we?” So what is the whole notion of providing this form of food and nutrition support about then, if it accepts the existence of the two ‘invisible’ days called ‘weekend’ and the ‘missing’ weeks called ‘holidays’? (Is there a ‘Bermuda Triangle’ of days of the year happening here?)
I hear at times that the food is provided to help the young people to “concentrate at school” and “learn better”. Hmmm, I think this rationale is a tad limited. Whatever happened to social learning – to learning outside of the class room or school boundaries? To learning about life beyond the tatty (and scarce) supply of books in the overfull classrooms that become the courts of the overburdened teachers? If we use the ‘concentration and learning’ rationale for food, should we not be feeding our young nation every day? I’d say so and even more so about teaching them ‘out of school’ things. How to spell hippopotamus on a marginally full tummy on a Tuesday is going be a lot less important in the long run than self esteem on an empty tummy on Sunday, I’d say (but I accept some may differ, oddly, about hippopotamus vs self esteem).
Another argument I hear offered against the feeding of young people at the weekends and holidays is “well, they have family (or community members) to help them at those times.” Nice try. Yes, they may have family and community members, but let’s be realistic here. If a young person depends on a feeding scheme during school days what can change anything significantly on non-school days? Not much (yes, again, I know there are arguments around this – like the “family members returning home” from their week day work, etc, but I am talking about significant change in access to nutrition).
Then the old and worn out “dependency” word pops out. It has to – we are ‘doing development’ after all. I’m not going there today. Or maybe I should, just a little – try explaining that concept (‘you can’t become dependent on us’) to the child, then we can talk more about it.
Then the final blow – “we don’t have money to do this extra work.” This is very interesting. Does this mean that the donors who support the feeding during the week and during the school term don’t think children need food at other times? Ask them!
So go ahead – have a great weekend, and let’s eat again on Monday!
Printer-friendly version
Vacancies
Events
-
Monday, February 13, 2012
-
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
-
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Opportunities
-
10/02/2012
-
10/02/2012
-
13/02/2012
-
14/02/2012
-
15/02/2012
